Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32885179›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2020

Aligning implementation and user-centered design strategies to enhance the impact of health services: results from a concept mapping study.

Alex R Dopp, Kathryn E Parisi, Sean A Munson, Aaron R Lyon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

93 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alex R DoppDepartment of Psychological Science, University of Arkansas, 216 Memorial Hall, Fayetteville, AR 72701 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2522-6546
Kathryn E ParisiDepartment of Psychological Science, University of Arkansas, 216 Memorial Hall, Fayetteville, AR 72701 USA.
Sean A MunsonDepartment of Human Centered Design and Engineering, University of Washington, 3960 Benton Lane NE, 428 Sieg Hall, Seattle, WA 98195 USA.
Aaron R LyonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street Box 356560, Room BB1644, Seattle, WA 98195 USA.

Funding

UW ALACRITY Center for Psychosocial Interventions ResearchP50MH115837 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI IAN Moore BENNETT · 2018 to 2026
$18.2M
NIMH NIH HHS P50 MH115837
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInnovative approaches are needed to maximize fit between the characteristics of evidence-based practices (EBPs), implementation strategies that support EBP use, and contexts in which EBPs are implemented. Standard approaches to implementation offer few ways to address such issues of fit. We characterized the potential for collaboration with experts from a relevant complementary approach, user-centered design (UCD), to increase successful implementation.

methodUsing purposive and snowball sampling, we recruited 56 experts in implementation (

resultsWe used multidimensional scaling techniques to examine patterns in the sorting of strategies. Based on conceptual clarity and fit with established implementation frameworks, we selected a final set of 10 clusters (i.e., groups of strategies), with five implementation-only clusters, two UCD-only clusters, and three trans-discipline clusters. The highest-priority activities (i.e., above-average importance and feasibility) were the trans-discipline clusters plus facilitate change and monitor change. Implementation and UCD experts sorted strategies into similar clusters, but each gave higher importance and feasibility ratings to strategies/clusters from their own discipline.

conclusionsIn this concept mapping study, experts in implementation and UCD had perspectives that both converged (e.g., trans-discipline clusters, which were all rated as high-priority) and diverged (e.g., in importance/feasibility ratings). The results provide a shared understanding of the alignment between implementation science and UCD, which can increase the impact and sustainability of EBP implementation efforts. Implications for improved collaboration among implementation and UCD experts are discussed.

Indexed as

Concept mappingEvidence-based practiceHuman-centered designImplementation strategiesUser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID32885179
PMCPMC7427975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.